scottieI think those ancient reasonable membranoids in Venus would create a special way of photosynthesis. They would have done such a super-heat-resistant catalytic process in which energy of absorbed photon was spent on a separation of CO2 - C + O2. Moreover, both components would be stocked in separate granules and vacuoles! And this technological structure would require the presence of special membrane rhizoids, which would look in the substrate compounds containing hydrogen - for exothermic synthesis of water! Energy would be allocated, by the way, can also be used for CO2 - C + O2!

scottieWell, actually, I'm not against accretion. Central hyper-astroid initially formed from the stars - the white giants that - the main population of elliptical galaxies. Such stars - pure hydrogen-helium white giants, as these galaxies formed by accretion (in my opinion). And later in the centers of these galaxies after falling stars on the growing star-monster appears hyper-astroid and stretched in the equatorial plane in a giant rotating spindle, which is detached from any planetoids and stars type "Main sequence".

Well, me, my "music" is quite suitable. Because this is my way to solve that problem, now called the crisis of the genre in molecular biology. Now the question is, what can explore methodological complex nano-phenomena in the cell membrane to describe it, "consciousness" of the cell - the "Active membrane model of the World on ... Spirit? Continuum?" - Oh, what's the difference?

You have a sincere belief in the evolutionary hypothesis and I understand that and respect it.

However unless you can establish those views have a scientific basis, then it is only a belief system like any other.

In order to get life started, for evolution to get going you have to believe that the early atmosphere lacked oxygen.

So an atmosphere lacking oxygen had to be designed to test out the view.

That design, whatever the combination of gases,is confronted with major problems.1) Many experiments involving an oxygen free atmosphere have produced amino acids, the basic molecules in living organisms. However the energy that created these molecules also destroys them. That is why Miller and others had to get them out of the system once created. What natural process could have done that? (The problem has not even been addresses as far as I know)2) All the experiments produce both left handed and right handed amino acids in more or less equal quantities. The life processes use only the left handed ones. Right handed ones are toxic. What natural processes are able to differentiate between them?3) If life did evolve in, say an ammonia/methane environment, that organism had to evolve into one that breathes oxygen. How did that happen? Again there is no plausible explanation that has been offered.4) How did the oxygen free atmosphere become an oxygen rich atmosphere? There have been a few attempted explanations, here is a statement on the subject of photosynthesis that you have referred to.

Perhaps most importantly, how did the oxygen produced by photosynthesis get incorporated into the continents? This could not have occurred by direct oxidative weathering because that is contradicted by the persistence of detrital uraninite and pyrite in Archean sediments.

Science, Kasting, Vol. 293, 3 August 2001, “The Rise of Atmospheric Oxygen”, page 8195) How did the genetic code evolve? Koonan for example refers to this as an intractable problem

Here we have a clearly designed atmosphere that has proved not to be correct simply because for the past 60 years or so all attempts to surmount these problems I have mentioned above have failed.Clearly no natural explanation has proved plausible. That is not in doubt.

When I suggested that the only plausible answer was that the atmosphere was clearly designed correctly with it’s O2 content right at the start of life that is also designed all those problems go away.

Yet you responded this way

You're using stupid logic. Just because we can create something, doesn't mean, it must be created by someone.

Now forget that I am using stupid logic as you put it, would you like to rephrase the second half of your statement because it makes no sense to me. I simply do not know what you mean.

You know, I'm tired of arguing with you. That's problem of all of you, anti-evolutionists, you rather beat your opponents by writing lots of long posts, which may sound nice (how else would you get followers, right?) than by true arguments. You are trying to look clever, but the least mistake you're doing is mixing origin of life and evolution. You should make it clear for yourself first, what are you talking about.

Regarding the oxygen, I know there are some articles, I have read some, but I'm not much willing to spend time searching them now (yeah, I'm sorry, but my memory is not that good to remember every article I've read years ago). But you're obviously using only these facts, which are usufull for you.

The fact, that we can create something is not proof that it must be created by someone and it cannot "evolve".

Jackbean (and other participants in this thread).It`s a mystery to me why you all encourage this pseudoscientific monologue to go on and on and on. Your arguments are only adding fuel to the fire. And you should know it. It`s like debating holocaust- deniers. You can newer answer all their shoe box questions and their citing of known and unknown historians. So you don`t do it. You know their motives and you know their tactics and you don`t invite them into an arena of honest and open thinking. It`s not about censorship, but about decency, really. On a biology forum I would not expect creationists given free space to prove their point that science can`t agree on the basics of life on earth. This thread serves to verify the“fight” inside the science community, which we know is false, but nevertheless demonstrated here. Science is about placing evidence before conclusion, not the other way around, like creationists do. Yes, I took this forum to be a science forum. But this never ending stream of modern day creationism proved me wrong. It`s a pity.

scottie Hmmm. Well, actually, personally, I do study at first, and then concluding, moreover, my idea - not creationism. I criticize creationism and criticize distorted evolutionism that creationism is a giveaway. So this is Mr. Oldman's not about me!

I am sorry you thought I was referring to yourself. I was simply responding to the rather bizzare outburst from oldman.

To my knowledge since he registered in June he has contributed just twice to this forum.On both occasions he has directed his rather tribal fire at me personally. No science, just vitriol.I suppose he needs to regularly vent his spleen as his frustration builds. His statement

On a biology forum I would not expect creationists given free space to prove their point that science can`t agree on the basics of life on earth.

Well it speaks for itself. " Dissent will not be tolerated" mein Furheur

I will consider myself quite fortunate if I don't get anymore blasts of this nature.

scottie In the Soviet Union was such a terrible time - Stalinism, and then was biology - Lysenkoism. Then the right was declared dogma Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, certain, and everything else - was considered the machinations of world imperialism. Then anyone who did not agree with the dogmas of Lysenko either shot or sent to concentration camps for life. Well, now we have some new trends on a global scale! .. The scientific controversy - administrative arguments. All learn to get version of evolutionary theory "from simple replicators to evolutionary crown of creation" and to ban argue with that! And anyone who does not agree - to declare "creationists" and "excommunicated", that is only true of the "admin-science"! And the fact that the opponents of the theory of creationism and does not smell - it does not matter. It remains to arrange the world "cultural revolution" with the Red Guards of Mao on the script - and ... Hello, Sunset Civilization!